UNIVERSITY  OF  OREGON  BULLETIN 


NEW  SERIES 


DECEMBER,  1911 


Vol.  IX,  No.  4 


THE  t mm 
OF  IHE 

ttSIVEftSITIf  UHLLMS 

THE  LAST  OF  THE  SEQUANI 

A STUDY  IN  RECONSTRUCTION 


FREDERIC  STANLEY  DUNN 


Published  monthly  by  the  University  of  Oregon,  and  entered  at  the  post-office  in 
Eugene,  Oregon,  as  second-class  matter 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  SEQUANI 


A STUDY  IN  RECONSTRUCTION 


FREDERIC  STANLEY  DUNN 


c 


0^3^ 


*9 

r^o 


FOREWORD 

“The  Last  of  the  Sequani”  is  purely  an  experiment  in  the  reconstruc- 
tion of  missing  history,  a looking-backward  from  a very  slender  vantage- 
ground.  A friend  to  whom  the  sketch  was  submitted  for  critisism, 
candidly  pronounced  it  “too  much  on  the  Ferrero  order  of  history- 
writing, too  inferential  and  speculative.”  But  this  very  characteristic 
was  in  the  ulterior  purpose  of  the  writer — a wish  to  stimulate  healthful 
investigation  on  the  part  of  students  and  teachers  of  Caesar,  and  to 
cultivate  in  them  the  habit  of  comparing  Caesar  with  himself.  If  the 
High  School  teacher  into  whose  study  this  pamphlet  finds  its  way  will 
but  exploit  the  suggested  references,  a useful  practice  always,  some 
new  truths  perhaps  will  have  been  invoked  and  others  exercised.  It 
would  be  folly  to  hope  for  escape  from  antagonistic  views.  On  the 
contrary,  if  a polemic  attitude  is  aroused  among  its  readers,  the  essay 
has  proved  the  success  of  its  experiment. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/lastofsequanistuOOdunn 


THE  LAST  OF  THE  SEQUANI 

A STUDY  IN  RECONSTRUCTION. 

‘In  eo  itinere  (Orgetorix)  persuadet  Castico,  Catamantaloedis  filio, 
Sequano , cuius  pater  regnum  in  Sequanis  multos  annos  optinuerat  et 
a senatu  populi  Romani  amicus  appellatus  erat,  ut  regnum  in  civitate 
sua  occuparet,  quod  pater  ante  habueratJ ’■ — Caesar  B.  G.  I.,  3,  4. 


Two  chieftains  alone  answer  for  the  Sequani  in  all  the  eight  books 
of  the  Gallic  War,  and  these  two  in  a single  sentence.  When  we  meet 
with  but  four  Helvetians  (see  note  below)  in  the  history  of  the  The 
Conquest,  we  are  not  so  very  much  surprised,  for  the  Helvetians  as  a 
tribe  appear  prominently  only  once  again  after  their  enforced  return 
(7,  75,  3).  Their  barriers  of  mountain  and  lake  and  river  had  the 
effect  of  excluding  them  from  the  general  activities  of  greater  Gaul. 
But  the  Sequanians  lay  within  a busy  zone  and,  even  though  ever  so 
passively  inclined,  were,  by  their  very  location,  if  for  no  other  reason, 
drawn  into  the  train  of  events.  Many  times,  and  often  quite  at  length, 
Caesar  has  occasion  to  refer  to  this  nation — yet  two  and  only  two 
personages  fastened  themselves  upon  his  attention,  and  even  these 
antedated  the  period  of  his  relationship  with  Gaul.  So  far  as  there 
is  any  evidence,  Caesar  mentions  not  one  contemporary  Sequanian  or  one 
with  whom  he  was  personally  acquainted. 

Was  then  the  personelle  of  the  Sequanian  baronage  so  mediocre  and 
so  uninteresting?  This  would  seem  the  more  remarkable  when  we  recall 
that,  at  the  time  of  Caesar’s  arrival  in  Gaul,  the  Sequani  had  headed 
one  of  the  two  great  national  parties  (1,  31,  3-4;  6,  12).  Political 
supremacy,  we  well  know,  depends  most  generously  upon  the  great 
men  who  sustain  it.  A dearth  of  enterprising,  masterful  minds  fre- 
quently portends  the  downfall  of  a political  fabric.  Could  this  be  what 
was  happening  among  the  Sequani?  Certain  it  is  that  their  boasted 
hegemony  was  passing  from  them,  though  to  charge  the  decline  to  their 
lack  of  leaders  would  be  a hasty  and  unjust  conclusion.  The  Sequanian 
fall  was  the  issue  of  many  causes. 

But,  conversely,  it  is  just  as  true  that  the  inevitable  crushing  of 
a nation  will  eventually  deprive  it  of  its  lights.  The  Sequani,  in  spite 
of  their  much  advertised  supremacy,  were  practically  defunct  as  a 
political  organization  when  Caeser  found  them.  There  had  been  little 
incentive  to  exercise  spirit  and  leadership  at  such  fearful  cost  as  it 
had  of  late  entailed — for  the  thralldom  of  Ariovistus  was  upon  them 
(1,  31-33).  The  Romans,  in  acquiring  the  Sequanian  domain,  had 
succeeded  to  the  possession  of  a dead  entity  (6,  12,  6-9). 


Note. — Those  interested  will  find  the  writer’s  sketch  of  “The  Helvetian 
Quartet”  in  the  Classical  Weekly,  Vol.  11,  pp.  178,  186,  194. 


5 


CATAMANTALOEDES. 


Of  Catamantaloedes  it  would  seem  at  first  little  more  than  gener- 
alities can  be  predicated,  for  he  is  mentioned  in  passing  as  the  father 
of  his  son.  Yet  the  few  additional  items  that  Caesar  appends,  together 
with  other  references  gathered  here  and  there  from  the  Commentaries 
and  from  other  sources,  throw  an  interesting  light  upon  this  Sequanian’s 
history.  His  must  have  been  one  of  the  few  Gallic  names  with  which 
Caesar  and  all  Romans  had  certainly  been  more  or  less  familiar. 

The  information  which  Caesar  accords  us  has  the  appearance  of 
being  familiar  history  to  his  own  contemporaries,  facts  which  he  recalls 
to  the  mind  of  the  reader  as  if  by  accident,  and  solely  for  the  purpose 
of  introducing  a less-known  son  in  terms  of  a famous  father,  in  the 
same  way  in  which,  in  the  very  same  chapter,  he  introduces  Dumnorix 
as  the  brother  of  the  well-known  Druid  Divitiacus — else  what  interest 
would  Roman  readers  have  in  a Gaul’s  genealogy?  We  may  be  sure 
that  the  father,  especially  if  long  dead,  would  scarcely  have  found  a 
place  in  the  narrative,'  unless  Catamantaloedes  had  been  in  his  own 
day  a great  and  prominent  figure.  And  such  he  had  been.  As  Caesar 
says,  he  “had  held  the  regal  power  for  many  years  and  had  been  called 
friend  by  the  Senate  of  the  Roman  people.” 

The  name  should  conjure  up  in  our  minds  the  picture  of  a vanished 
grandeur.  Cantamantaloedes  had  been  king — so  Caesar  styles  him — 
one  of  the  few  graced  with  that  title  in  the  Commentaries.  With  such 
worthies  as  Divitiacus  of  the  Suessiones  (2,  4,  7)  or  Ollovico,  the  father 
of  Teutomatus  (7,  31,  5),  he  belongs  to  the  era  of  the  Gallic  “father- 
kings”  that  had  passed  away.  He  had  been  monarch  in  the  “golden 
age”  of  Sequanian  supremacy,  when  in  all  Celtic  Gaul  only  the  Arverni 
and  the  Aedui  could  claim  names  as  noble.  Those  were  the  heroic 
days  before  Roman  encroachment,  before  the  wave  of  democratic  revolu- 
tion, before  the  dread  German  cloud  had  begun  to  lower  upon  the  Rhine 
horizon  and  the  spectral  Ariovistus  had  become  a “bogy-man”  to  young 
and  old  alike. 

The  few  hints  that  we  can  gather  from  Caesar  and  other  authorities 
as  to  the  era  immediately  preceding  Roman  occupation  are  extremely 
meager,  a fragmentary  picture  at  best.  This  much  we  may  infer,  that 
“there  were  giants  in  the  earth  in  those  days.”  There  were  tremendous 
influences  astir  and  all  but  giants  went  down  before  them.  Did 
Catamantaloedes  himself,  though  surely  a giant,  finally  succumb  to  the 
fierce  conflict  raging  around  him? 

In  his  prime,  the  Sequanian  must  have  been  a stalwart  among  his 
peers.  Fate  had  placed  him  where  there  was  need  of  both  a shrewd 
intellect  and  a mighty  arm,  for  he  was  king  of  a tribe  that  had  a high 
reputation  to  subserve  and  a worthy  cause  to  defend.  Divitiacus  describes 
the  ager  Sequanus  to  Caesar  as  optimus  totius  Galliae  (1,  31,  10). 
Nowhere  else  in  Gaul  was  there  such  fertility.  This  in  itself  must  have 
made  of  the  Sequanians  a prosperous  people  under  natural  conditions, 
a center  of  commercial  importance.  The  head  of  such  a tribe,  if  him- 
self of  a vigorous  and  aggressive  personality,  could  scarcely  have 
escaped  national  renown.  Far-reaching  treaties  for  barter  and  trade 
would  necessarily  fall  under  his  jurisdiction,  and  the  responsibility  for 
the  prosperity  of  his  people  would  depend  largely  upon  his  wisdom  as 
the  executive.  We  gather  an  interesting  suggestion  from  Strabo 
(4,  p.  192)  as  to  the  particular  feature  which  made  Sequani  famous. 
Divitiacus  did  not  speak  of  it  to  Caesar  on  this  occasion,  for  the  latter 
doubtless  knew  from  personal  experience  where  his  sausages  used  to  come 
from — the  pork  which  the  epicures  of  Rome  prized  so  highly.  It  came 
from  up  the  Arar,  from  the  rich  farm  lands  of  the  Sequani,  where 
Vesontio  (1,  38)  may  have  been  the  great  pork-market  of  ancient  Gaul, 


6 


a Chicago  or  a Kansas  City  for  the  world  that  was.  Varro  in  his 
Res  Rusticae  (2,  4,  10-11)  says  that  in  his  day — and  that  was  Caesar’s 
day  also — the  hams  and  bacon  from  Gaul,  though  he  may  be  speaking 
more  narrowly  of  Cisalpine  Gaul,  were  the  richest  and  largest  in  the 
markets  of  Rome.  And,  in  testimony  of  the  enormous  size  of  Gallic 
hogs,  he  quotes  an  amusing  anecdote  from  Cato,  that  they  were  some- 
times known  to  be  too  heavy  to  walk  or  even  to  stand  on  their  feet, 
and  had  to  be  lifted  into  carts,  if  it  became  necessary  to  move  them 
from  place  to  place. 

The  heavy  annual  exportation  of  pork  and  grain  from  the  Sequanian 
territory,  while  the  source  of  its  prosperity,  was  at  the  same  time  the 
cause  of  its  woe.  The  Rhone  with  its  northern  tributaries  was  the 
only  channel  of  egress  for  Sequanian  products  into  southern  markets, 
but  unfortunately  was  not  included  within  Sequanian  boundaries.  The 
water-way  was  in  great  part  on  the  boundary-line  only,  while  on  the 
right  bank  were  the  Aedui.  In  the  absence  of  amicable  partnership 
the  deplorable  result  was  the  attempt  on  the  part  of  both  nations  to 
exact  toll,  each  from  the  other  (Strabo  4,  p.  192).  Considerable  revenue 
must  have  accrued  to  the  nobility  from  the  river-dues,  so  that  the 
jeopardy  of  these  latter  was  at  once  hotly  resented.  War  was  inevitable, 
and  here  probably  was  where  King  Catamantaloedes  found  the  chief 
theater  for  all  his  intellectual  and  physical  powers.  And  herein  it 
may  be  that  Rome  first  learned  the  name  of  the  great  Sequanian. 

There  were  still  other  elements  that  probably  contributed  to  the 
fame  of  Catamantaloedes.  The  old-time  supremacy  wielded  by  the 
Arverni  had  never  been  recovered  after  the  disastrous  blow  dealt  them 
in  121  B.  C.  by  Fabius  Allobrogicus  (1,  45,  2),  and  into  the  place 
of  the  dispossessed  nation  had  come  the  Sequani.  From  the  position 
of  allies,  these  latter  were  now  elevated  to  the  leadership  of  their 
wing  of  the  Celts.  This  rise  of  Sequania  we  gather  from  Caesar’s 
language  in  reporting  the  speech  of  Divitiacus  in  Book  1,  31,  3-4  as 
compared  with  his  own  epitome  of  Gallic  politics  in  Book  6,  12. 
Divitiacus  in  the  former  passage  mentions  the  Arverni  and  the  Aedui 
respectively  as  leaders  of  the  two  factions  in  Gaul,  but  in  the  very 
next  sentence  tells  how  the  Arverni  and  the  Sequani  summoned  the 
Germans  to  their  aid  against  the  Aedui,  ascribing  to  the  Sequani,  at 
least  a partnership  in  the  supremacy,  perhaps  denying  them,  as  the 
hereditary  foe,  their  full  quota  of  power.  But  the  second  passage, 
Caesar’s  own  review  of  the  political  situation  in  Gaul  at  the  time  of  his 
becoming  governor,  ignores  the  Arverni  altogether.  “The  Aedui  were 
the  leaders  of  one  faction,  the  Sequani  of  the  other.”  The  entire  nar- 
rative of  the  Commentaries  substantiates  this  assertion,  for  it  was' 
not  until  the  seventh  summer  of  Caesar’s  pro-consulship  that  the 
Arverni  arose  to  assume  the  national  burden  under  the  splendid  Vercin- 
getorix.  Meanwhile,  Celtillus  (7,  4,  1),  if  still  living,  would  seem  to 
have  deferred  to  Catamantaloedes.  How  much  the  Sequanian  ascendancy 
may  have  been  due  to  the  brilliant  personality  of  their  king,  we  can 
not  tell.  Perhaps  Catamantaloedes  himself  had  been  largely  instru- 
mental in  gathering  up  the  reins  within  the  grasp  of  his  nation — an 
Epaminondas  or  a Hohenzollern  for  his  tribesmen. 

The  Sequanian  monarch  must  have  been  long  a famous  figure  in 
Gallic  circles.  Caesar’s  expression  is  “he  had  held  the  regal  power 
for  many  years.”  To  have  reigned  for  many  years  in  those  stirring 
times  means  that  the  king  must  have  ruled  ably  and  with  vigor.  Cata- 
mantaloedes could  have  been  no  mere  figure-head.  This  Edward  III 
of  the  Celts  (shall  we  call  him,  like  the  First  Edward  also,  ‘The  Hammer 
of  the  Aedui’?)  must  have  been  noted,  not  merely  for  having  grown  old 
and  venerable  while  on  the  throne,  but  for  having  exerted  a strong 
and  powerful  influence  upon  his  country,  upon  his  allies,  and,  perhaps 
above  all,  upon  his  foes. 


7 


We  have  no  means  of  divining  how  far  back  into  the  past  his 
long  reign  had  extended.  Only  one  reference  to  the  Sequani,  aside 
from  those  given  by  Caesar,  might  possibly  fall  within  the  life-time 
of  Catamantaloedes,  and  for  this  we  are  indebted  to  Plutarch  (Marius 
24,  in  fin).  After  the  Battle  of  Aquae  Sextiae,  Teutobodus,  King  of 
the  Teutones,  and  several  of  his  chieftains,  attempted  to  make  their 
escape  from  the  Putridi  Campi  and  to  join  the  host  of  the  Cimbri  in 
Italy.  But  they  were  intercepted  among  the  passes  of  the  Alps  by 
Sequanians,  brought  back  from  their  flight,  and  remanded  to  the  victo- 
rious Marius.  This  was  in  the  year  102,  the  year  of  Caesar’s  birth. 

As  we  know  neither  the  beginning  nor  the  end  of  his  reign,  why 
may  we  not  conjecture  that  this  successful  ambuscade  was  generaled  by 
Catamantaloedes  himself,  who  may  have  been  at  the  time  a promising 
young  monarch?  Granted  even  that  he  lived  until  within  a few  years  of 
Caesar’s  coming,  it  is  far  from  being  an  impossibility.  The  Helvetian 
Divico  (1,  13)  was  an  imposing  figure  at  the  time  of  this  same  Teutonic 
and  Cimbric  invasion  and  yet  lived  to  meet  in  conference  with  Caesar 
shortly  before  the  Battle  at  Bibracte.  Caesar’s  phrase  multos  annos  in 
speaking  of  the  Sequanian’s  reign  conveys  the  idea  of  great  longevity 
and  the  case  of  Divico  affords  an  enticing  parallel.  The  hypothesis 
then  that  Catamantaloedes  was  an  actor  in  this  capture  of  the  Teutonic 
chieftains,  leads  to  other  interesting  inferences — that  the  Sequani  were 
ostensibly  the  allies  of  Marius,  and  that  their  king  gave  material  aid 
to  the  Romans  in  destroying  their  common  scourge.  Who  knows  that  the 
complimentary  title  of  amicus  which  he  received  from  Rome  may  not 
have  been  in  recognition  of  his  services  during  this  same  memorable 
campaign? 

It  is  tantalizing  not  to  know  how  long  the  Sequanian  king  had  been 
dead  when  Caesar  came — not  to  know  whether  he  had  lived  to  see  the 
aggression  of  Ariovistus,  or  whether  he  had  died  in  the  earlier  stages 
of  the  Aeduo-Sequanian  War.  It  is  difficult  not  to  believe  that  Cata- 
mantaloedes was  a protagonist  in  the  long  and  bitter  feud  with  the 
Aedui.  Caesar  in  speaking  of  the  duration  of  this  war  (1,  31,  4)  uses 
the  very  same  expression  ( multos  annos ) as  in  referring  to  the  reign 
of  Catamantaloedes,  so  that  the  long  periods  of  both  the  man  and  the 
war  must  surely  have  been  coincident  in  some  part,  must  at  least  have 
overlapped.  And  it  is  but  another  step  to  believe  that  it  was  his  general- 
ship in  the  war  with  the  Aedui  that  won  for  Catamantaloedes  his  chief 
fame  abroad. 

This  then  is  the  picture  we  may  imagine  of  Gaul  in  the  generation 
before  Caesar’s  coming.  Far  up  among  the  Belgae,  Divitiacus  of  the 
Suessiones  (2,  4,  7)  had  pushed  his  victorious  arms  into  Britain’s 
interior,  the  most  prominent  personage  in  Belgic  Gaul,  unless  Catuvolcus, 
“King  of  a half-part  of  the  Eburones”  (6,  31,  5)  could  have  been  in 
his  youth  a rival  for  military  fame  in  that  corner  of  Gaul.  Down  among 
the  Aquitani,  the  grandfather  of  the  Piso  brothers  (4,  12,  4)  was  king 
and  known  as  the  “Friend  of  the  Roman  People.”  But  with  the  Celtic 
Gauls,  their  Peloponnesian  War  was  on.  It  was  either  “the  Sequanian” 
or  “the  Aedui”;  “My  sword  for  Catamantaloedes”  or  “Fealty  to  Epore- 
dorix”  (7,  67,  7).  No  one  knows  how  long  the  feud  had  prevailed,  but 
feuds  were  a Gallic  instinct  (6,  11,  2-3),  and  this  particular  phase 
of  it  may  have  been  a recent  shifting  of  the  forces — perhaps  a develop- 
ment within  the  lifetime  of  Catamantaloedes. 

Vesontio  (1,  38)  must  have  presented  a martial  spectacle  in  the  old 
days.  The  wisdom  of  the  Sequani  had  made  it  a much  respected  strat- 
egic center,  which  the  genius  of  Caesar  was  not  slow  to  recognize.  Here 
in  his  own  day  he  found  an  arsenal,  which  owing  to  the  feud,  the  Aedui 
had  no  doubt  been  perfecting  for  many  years.  From  his  capital  on 
these  castellated,  river-girt  heights,  the  King  of  the  Sequani,  during 


8 


his  long  life-time,  may  have  sent  forth  many  a messenger  on  war  intent. 
The  shout  may  have  often  echoed  from  one  hill-top  to  another,  “Send 
up  your  thousands.  Death  to  the  ‘brothers  of  Rome’  ” (1,  33,  2;  36,  5; 
44,  9:  Cic.  ad  Att.  1,  19,  2:  Tac.  Ann.  11,  25,  2:  Strabo  4,  3,  21). 
Celtillus  himself  (7,4,1),  afterwards  martyr  to  ambition,  but  once 
ranking  man  in  all  Gaul,  father  of  the  redoubtable  hero  of  Alesia,  may 
have  come  from  the  land  of  the  Arverni  to  join  forces  with  his  friend  and 
ally,  and  to  attend  war-councils  within  the  circle  of  the  Dubis.  With  him 
may  have  come  his  brother  Gobanitio  (7,  4,  2),  of  whom  we  only  know 
that  he  afterwards  opposed  his  puny  will  against  the  magnificent  patriot- 
ism of  Vercingetorix,  his  nephew.  Tribes  that  were  under  the  imperium 
of  the  Arverni  must  also  have  followed  their  allies  to  war;  such  were 
the  Eleuteti,  Cadurci,  Gabali,  and  Vellavii,  who  rallied  around  Vervinge- 
torix  at  the  last  great  stand  (7,  75,  2).  And  since  we  find  the  Remi 
afterwards  succeeding  to  the  hegemony  of  this  same  faction  (6,  12,  7), 
it  is  but  natural  to  conclude  that  this  tribe,  with  some  who  are  men- 
tioned as  their  allies,  at  some  time  or  other  owned  the  suzerainty  of 
Catamantaloedes.  Thus,  from  the  land  of  the  Carnutes  (6,  4,  5),  the 
father  of  Tasgetius  (5,  25,  1)  may  have  brought  his  hordes  in  answer 
to  the  summons  of  the  Sequanian  General-in-Chief.  A king  himself, 
Catamantaloedes  owned  kings  among  his  vassals;  for  this  was  the  gen- 
eration when  kings  prevailed,  the  kings  who  so  bitterly  resented  the 
waning  of  their  power  under  the  Roman  imperium  (2,  1,  4) . 

But  over  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Arar  was  General  Eporedorix 
(7,  67,  7)  with  the  allied  armies  of  the  Aedui,  and  these  too  owned 
the  chieftainship  of  kings.  The  Aedui,  under  the  presumable  pro- 
tection of  Roman  friendship,  had  tenaciously  maintained  the  leadership 
of  their  faction,  as  against  the  succession  of  three  several  tribes  to  the 
hegemony  of  the  opposite  party.  The  personelle  of  the  one  faction  was 
therefore  the  more  constant  and  generally  recognized;  whereas  the 
vassalage  of  the  other  had  been  so  shifting  that  Caesar  probably  did  not 
care  to  weary  his  readers  with  their  recital.  Chance  elements  have 
also  of  necessity  entered  into  the  narrative  and  have  brought  the  Aedui 
into  greater  prominence.  These  several  causes  have  tended  to  restrict 
our  knowledge  of  the  Sequanian  forces  on  the  one  hand,  while  augment- 
ing that  of  the  Aedui  on  the  other. 

Thus,  the  Bellovaci  (2,  14,  2)  who,  to  quote  the  words  of  Divitiacus, 
“had  always  been  under  the  protection  of  the  Aeduan  state,”  very 
likely  responded  when  Eporedorix  issued  a general  call,  coming  from 
far  off  Bratuspantiun  in  Belgic  Gaul  (2,  13,  2)  with  their  tale  of  from 
sixty  to  one  hundred  thousand  armed  men  (2,  4,  5).  Moritasgus  in 
person  (5,  54,  2),  or  his  father,  may  have  come  from  the  land  of  the 
Senones  (6,  4,  2)  to  join  Eporedorix  against  the  Sequani.  And  it  is 
fair  to  surmise  that  Camulogenus  (7,  57,  3)  who,  when  venerable  in 
years,  commanded  these  same  Senones  and  the  Parisii  against  Labienus 
in  the  great  insurrection  of  Caesar’s  seventh  year,  may  have  contributed 
the  vigor  of  his  youth  against  the  aggression  of  Catamantaloedes.  The 
Bituriges,  just  across  the  Loir,  were  also  in  fide  Aeduorum,  as  is  shown 
by  their  appeal  against  Vercingetorix  in  7,  5,  2.  Their  allegiance  to  the 
Aedui  must  surely  have  been  manifested  earlier,  when  the  war  with 
the  Sequani  was  on.  And  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  states  which  were 
under  the  actual  imperium  of  the  Aedui  as  late  as  the  war  with 
Vercingetorix  were  contingents  earlier  in  the  War  of  the  River-tolls. 
These  were  the  Segusiavi,  Ambluareti,  Aulerci  Brannovices,  and  the 
Blannovii  (7,  75,  2).  With  what  faction  Ollovico,  the  father  of  Teuto- 
matus  of  the  Nitiobriges  (7,  31,  5)  cast  his  lot,  it  is  difficult  to  say. 
The  fact  that  he  was  styled  amicus  of  the  Roman  people  might  rank 
him  as  the  ally  of  the  Aedui.  Yet  Catamantaloedes  himself  was  also 


9 


an  amicus , and  we  have  presumed  to  imagine  him  as  the  Commander- 
in-Chief  of  the  anti-Roman  party. 

The  full  formula  of  this  complimentary  title,  as  we  find  by  com- 
parison with  the  passage  in  Book  1,  35  2,  was  rex  atque  amicus.  It 
was  Rome’s  way  of  making  formal  recognition  of  foreign  princes.  Its 
intent  in  the  case  of  Catamantaloedes  is  obscured  by  our  want  of  more 
complete  information  in  analogous  instances.  Sometimes,  as  in  the 
example  of  Masinissa  of  Numidia  (Livy  30,  15,  11),  the  title  is  definitely 
known  to  have  been  awarded  for  splendid  service.  Again,  as  with 
Ariobarzanes  of  Cappadocia  (Eutr.  5,  5,  2),  its  very  evident  purpose 
was  to  bolster  up  the  wavering  frontier  line  of  the  East.  The  other 
Gallic  kings  upon  whom  the  distinction  was  conferred  are  too  sum- 
marily mentioned  to  afford  us  any  adequate  solution  of  this  particular 
phase  of  Rome’s  policy  in  Gaul.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  Piso’s 
grandfather  (4,  12,  4)  or  Ollovico  (7,  31,  5)  received  the  title  either 
as  a reward  or  as  a bribe.  But  in  the  celebrated  case  of  Ariovistus 
(1,  35,  2;  40,  2),  the  evidence  seems  quite  convincing  that  Rome  sought 
to  disarm  a dangerous  and  powerful  enemy,  or  at  least  to  allay  his 
aggressions.  Caesar,  in  his  parley  with  the  German  monarch  (1,  43,  4), 
called  it  to  the  latter’s  attention  that  such  honors  were  allotted  to  but 
few  and  only  in  return  for  great  services.  But  Ariovistus  (1,  44,  9) 
was  shrewd  enough  to  see  how  much  of  this  was  specious  argument. 

The  temptation  is  therefore  strong  to  deduce  a similar  situation  for 
Catamantaloedes.  The  strenuous  regime  of  the  Sequanian  king  may 
have  been  such  as  to  elicit  the  admiration  and  perhaps  even  the  dismay 
of  the  Romans.  Catamantaloedes  was  at  least  powerful  enough  to  make 
himself  felt  as  the  foeman  of  the  “friends  of  the  Roman  people”  and 
was  at  the  same  time  an  antagonist  of  merit,  whom  it  was  no  dis- 
grace to  treat  with  courtesy  and  deference.  Thus  it  may  be  that  even 
Rome  chose  to  respect  the  throne  of  the  Sequani,  condescending  to 
bestow  her  favdrs  upon  its  occupant,  courting  him  with  politic  honors. 
Certain  it  is  that  a senatus  consultum  was  passed  in  his  name,  and  there- 
after Catamantaloedes  enjoyed  the  distinction  of  being  styled  amicus , 
the  friend  and  ally  of  the  Roman  people. 

Of  course,  all  this  fabric  may  be  built  upon  utterly  false  premises. 
The  case  of  Catamantaloedes  may  have  been  similar  to  that  of  Masi- 
nissa’s — a sincere  reward  for  some  particular  and  meritorious  conduct. 
The  Sequanian  may  have  been  at  peace  with  Rome,  and  his  reign  per- 
haps farther  back  in  time  than  we  have  surmised,  may  not  have  included 
in  its  limits  any  serious  outbreak  with  the  Aedui. 

Caesar’s  language  certainly  implies  that  the  kingship,  in  the  time 
of  Catamantaloedes’  son,  no  longer  existed.  Neither  do  the  subsequent 
references  to  the  Sequani  give  any  hint  whatever  that  kings  ruled 
there  in  the  time  of  Caesar’s  administration.  The  statement  that  “Cast- 
icus  should  seize  the  royal  power”  has  every  semblance  of  meaning 
that  a democratic  form  of  government  now  pervailed  and  that  Casticus 
was  plotting  to  restore  the  monarchy.  The  presumption  is  therefore 
plausible  that  Catamantaloedes  was  the  last  king  of  the  Sequani. 

And  what  could  have  been  the  nature  of  the  revolution  which  made 
a republic  of  the  Sequani?  And  how  did  it  involve  Catamantaloedes 
himself?  Was  the  old  king  suffered  to  die  in  peace  before  the  time  of 
his  people’s  cataclysm?  May  we  think  of  him  as  having  ruled  unto 
the  last,  with  true  royal  dignity  and  power  until  the  scepter  dropped 
from  his  death-stricken  fingers?  Or  did  Catamantaloedes  fall  in  the 
course  of  the  war,  in  the  defense  of  his  people,  a martyr  to  the  national 
cause? 

Could  it  be  that  discontent  had  been  gathering  for  years,  though 
held  in  check  by  a certain  reverence  and  perhaps  wholesome  dread  of 
the  old  lion,  until  his  collapse  gave  the  signal  for  the  onslaught?  Was 


10 


it  then  that  a sudden  outburst  of  popular  demonstration,  resultant  upon 
the  king’s  death,  forbade  a crowned  potentate  to  lord  it  again  over  the 
masses?  Or  could  the  aged  monarch  have  at  last  met  with  mob-violence 
at  the  hands  of  an  enraged  people?  Had  Catamantaloedes  been  guilty 
of  tyranny  or  infamy  in  his  latter  days?  Could  it  have  been  Cata- 
mantaloedes that  made  that  huge  error  in  statecraft,  inviting  the  aid 
of  the  Germans  and  invoking  upon  his  head  the  wrath  of  his  outraged 
people?  Was  this  then  the  type  of  revolution  which,  centuries  later, 
wrought  the  doom  of  Charles  I in  England  and  Louis  XVI  in  France? 

Of  this  much  we  may  be  sure — fate  had  willed  it  that  no  degenerate 
should  follow  him,  to  cast  reproach  upon  the  fame  of  Sequania’s  last 
monarch. 

CASTICUS. 

History  has  certainly  repeated  itself  in  the  efforts  of  a son  or  heir 
to  reinstate  a dethroned  dynasty  in  the  personage  of  himself.  French 
history,  especially  of  the  last  century,  is  replete  with  such  elements. 
French  society  of  but  a decade  or  so  ago  was  far  from  tranquil  by 
reason  of  the  rival  claims  of  Orleans,  Bourbon,  and  Bonaparte.  And 
here  in  the  chronicles  of  Caesar,  removed  from  these  latter  disturbances 
by  the  space  of  over  twenty  centuries,  we  find  a Prince-Pretender  to  a 
French  throne. 

Of  the  several  rather  unique  considerations  that  cluster  about  Cata- 
mantaloedes and  Casticus,  the  lonely  twain  from  the  Sequani,  as  cata- 
logued in  Ceasar’s  Commentaries,  the  fact  that  they  were  father  and  son 
at  once  renders  them  attractive.  Royalty  too  carries  with  it  a glamour 
of  interest  that  is  irresistable,  and  these  were  king  and  prince.  But, 
above  all,  the  romantic  element  is  strongly  appealed  to,  when  we 
realize  that  the  son  had  been  disinherited  from  the  throne  and  was  now 
endeavoring  to  recover  his  ancestral  rights.  Whether  his  cause  was 
righteous  or  otherwise,  whether  the  claimant  himself  was  worthy  or 
not,  a dramatic  atmosphere  is  thrown  around  Casticus  the  Sequanian, 
as  around  the  name  of  Tarquin  in  Roman  history  or  of  the  Stuarts  in 
England. 

The  brief  mention  Caesar  makes  of  him  leaves  us  a broad  realm 
for  conjecture.  Perhaps  the  Pro-Consul  himself  knew  but  little  of  him. 
The  episode  in  which  Casticus  figured  occurred  at  least  two  years  before 
Caesar  took  up  the  clew  and  nothing  more  than  the  meager  statement 
that  the  Sequanian  was  implicated  in  the  conspiracy  of  Orgetorix  may 
have  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Roman.  To  be  sure,  the 
conspiracy  itself  was  profoundly  startling,  but  the  person  of  Casticus 
may  have  been  but  obscurely  understood.  We  are  indebted  to  Caesar 
for  even  this  chance  reference. 

Casticus  lived  in  a troubled  era.  Reformation,  revolution,  all  sorts 
of  national  problems  were  stirring.  The  tribal  ascendancy,  sustained 
though  probably  at  great  cost  through  the  long  reign  of  his  father 
Catamantaloedes,  was  waning.  The  Aedui,  their  ancestral  foes,  were 
vaulting  to  the  front.  An  inter-tribal  struggle  alone  would  tax  a people’s 
strength,  but  a more  formidable  enemy  was  the  while  encroaching  upon 
the  national  boundaries.  The  Sequanian  territory  lay  on  the  extreme 
eastern  frontier,  where  it  was  constantly  menaced  with  invasion  by 
the  Germans  from  across  the  Rhine.  The  ever  impending  conquest 
at  the  hands  of  Ariovistus  was  like  the  fabled  terrors  of  Theseus  in 
Hades,  the  atra  silex  iam  iam  lapsura  (Verg.  Aen.  6,  602). 

Their  foreign  relations  were  thus  grave  enough,  but,  as  if  even  • 
these  were  not  sufficient,  internal  revolution  had*  added  its  disturbances, 
resulting  in  the  overthrow  of  the  traditional  form  of  government.  It 
may  have  been  a bloodless  stroke  of  state,  but  even  peaceful  revolutions 
are  apt  to  be  attended  with  more  or  less  political  confusion.  We  may 


11 


be  sure  that  Casticus  himself  would  not  have  harbored  hopes  of  rein- 
statement, as  he  did,  unless  there  were  some  measure  of  popular 
faction  to  depend  upon.  And  for  all  we  know,  the  great  wave  of 
democratic  agitation  that  seems  to  have  been  sweeping  away  the  original 
monarchies  in  Gaul  may  have  met  with  marked  resistance  among  the 
Sequanians  before  its  final  consummation. 

All  these  variant  elements  were  rapidly  working  toward  the  dis- 
solution of  Sequanian  independence.  The  war  with  the  Aedui  was 
succeeding  but  illy.  Annexation  by  the  Germans  was  becoming  more 
and  more  imminent.  Between  the  yoke  and  the  altar,  the  Sequani  were 
driven  to  the  desperate  recourse  which  wrought  their  doom.  Casticus 
himself  may  have  been  a blind  participant  in  the  unfortunate  trend  of 
affairs.  Somebody  at  least — though  it  may  have  been  one  of  the  Arverni 
— was  guilty  of  the  suggestion  that  an  alliance  be  made  with  the  one 
foe,  the  German  Ariovistus,  both  for  the  purpose  of  allaying  his  own 
hostile  attitude  and  of  securing  his  aid  against  the  other  foe,  the 
Aedui. 

The  coming  of  the  German  was  at  first  a brilliant  success  outwardly. 
The  balance,  with  a mighty  momentum,  swung  back  toward  the  Sequani. 
Casticus,  the  dethroned  prince,  may  have  thrust  aside  his  personal 
grievances  and  engaged  in  the  several  battles  wherein  the  Aedui  were 
decisively  crushed  and  a false  hegemony  restored  to  the  Sequani  (1,  31, 
4-9;  6,  12,  2-5).  But  the  disclosures  which  Divitiacus  afterward  made 
to  Caesar  (1,  31)  tell  the  wretched  sequel.  The  restoration  of  the 
Sequani  to  their  former  ascendancy  was  a bitter  mockery,  an  empty 
title.  We  are  reminded  of  how  in  a like  situation,  the  Saracens  were 
called  in  to  champion  the  cause  of  a Spanish  malcontent,  and  of  how 
eventually  they  gathered  the  peninsula  into  their  power  as  in  the 
tentacles  of  the  cuttle.  If  Casticus  had  been  the  Sequanian  Count 
Julian,  he  certainly  fared  as  illy  as  his  Spanish  counterpart,  for  he 
reaped  the  whirlwind. 

It  was  during  this  ever  increasing  stress  of  political  trouble  that 
there  came  into  the  land  of  the  Sequani  the  powerful  and  distinguished 
Helvetian  Orgetorix.  His  mission  publicly  was  to  arrange  amicable 
relations  between  the  two  tribes,  looking  toward  the  contemplated  migra- 
tion of  his  own  people.  But  with  characteristic  craft,  Orgetorix  sought 
out  Prince  Casticus.  Either  he  was  sure  of  his  quarry  from  a knowledge 
of  human  instinct,  or  else  Casticus  was  openly  known  as  ready  for 
revolt.  The  Sequanian  himself  eagerly  seized  the  proffered  chance. 
It  needed  no  eloquence  on  the  part  of  the  Helvetian,  for,  as  the  latter 
argued,  with  the  assistance  of  the  third  conspirator,  Dumnorix  of  the 
Aedui,  the  combination  would  be  irresistable.  Not  merely  would  Casticus 
himself  be  established  on  his  father’s  throne,  but  the  three  could  bring 
about  a partition  of  entire  Gaul.  The  German  terror  could  be  dissipated 
and  the  equally  detested  Romans  could  be  restrained  from  further 
encroachments. 

If  Casticus  had  any  really  patriotic  sentiment  in  entering  the  coali- 
tion with  Orgetorix,  it  was  quite  probably  overshadowed  by  a selfish 
one.  It  may  be  questioned  whether  he  was  as  eager  to  see  in  the 
alliance  an  opportunity  to  overthrow  Ariovistus  and  his  hated  regime 
or  to  crush  the  advance  of  Rome  as  to  get  himself  a crown  at  all  hazards. 
Perhaps  he  was  assured  in  his  own  mind,  that  of  the  two  evils,  if  the 
restoration  of  the  monarchy  could  be  called  an  .evil,  his  countrymen 
would  far  rather  own  a native  sovereign  than  a foreign  tyrant  like 
Ariovistus  or  such  as  the  Romans  bade  fair  to  become.  Times  were 
ripe  for  his  conspiracy,' and  Casticus  knew  it. 

As  to  the  latter  days  of  Casticus,  we  have  but  a blank.  Caesar 
omits  to  tell  us  whether  the  Sequanian  conspirator  met  with  the  same 
arrest  among  his  people  which  befell  Orgetorix.  If  the  writer  knew, 


12 


he  may  not  have  thought  if  ot  consequence  to  tell,  for  his  purpose  in 
narrating  so  prefatory  an  incident  at  all  is  from  the  Helvetian  stand- 
point. But,  as  we  know  the  violent  end  of  both  the  other  members  of 
the  barbarian  triumvirate,  the  silence  of  Caesar  upon  Casticus  is  rather 
tantalizing. 

There  is  perhaps  some  little  reason  to  believe  that  Casticus  escaped 
rough  usage  at  the  hands  of  his  countrymen.  The  same  elements  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  could  have  lent  themselves  to  the  accomplishment  of 
the  conspiracy,  could  also  have  secured  the  passive  behavior  of  the 
Sequani  when  it  failed.  For  the  country  was  in  a turmoil  and  would 
probably  have  allowed,  if  not  welcomed,  a change.  The  confusion  which 
prevailed  could  have  prevented  the  arrest  and  execution  of  Casticus. 
More  than  that,  Ariovistus  doubtless  had  secured  such  tyranny  over  the 
life  of  the  nation  that  even  its  executive  and  judiciary  may  have  been 
paralyzed.  The  people  were  neither  inclined  nor  permitted  to  enforce 
their  own  rights  and  laws.  It  may  be  that  the  conspiracy  did  not 
assume  such  dangerous  proportions  in  the  eyes  of  the  Sequani  and  the 
Aedui  as  it  did  to  the  Helvetii.  Or  it  may  be  that  these  two  nations 
did  not  succeed  in  obtaining  such  convicting  evidence  of  the  complicity 
of  their  two  representatives.  Possibly  the  conspiracy  eluded  them 
altogether  or  never  attained  more  than  the  effect  of  rumor.  Dumnorix 
the  Aeduan  lived  to  play  yet  more  prominent  parts  in  the  tragedy  of 
Gaul  (1,  18-20:  5,  6-7).  May  we  infer  that  Casticus  too  was  exempt? 

To  reason,  however,  that  Casticus  escaped  punishment  merely  because 
Dumnorix  did  would  be  a non  sequitur.  Caesar  informs  us  that  the 
latter  was  a great  favorite  with  the  people  (1,  18,  3),  which  alone 
would  be  sufficient  to  save  him  from  the  probabilities  of  condemnation. 
Again,  Dumnorix  was,  at  the  time  of  the  coalition,  Vergobret  of  the 
Aedui  (1,  3,  5),  “who  has  the  power  of  life  and  death  over  the  people” 
(1,  16,  5)  and  presumably  therefore,  by  virtue  of  his  supreme  office,  could 
have  suppressed  summary  action  against  himself.  But  we  have  no  author- 
ity that  Casticus  stood  in  either  of  these  relations  to  his  people.  His  position 
may  have  been  quite  the  reverse.  The  fact  that  he  was  a claimant  to 
the  throne  could  have  made  him  suspected  by  a great  proportion  of  his 
tribe,  and  especially  the  knowledge  that  he  was  actually  aiming  at  vio- 
lent restoration  of  the  monarchy  might  easily  have  incensed  the  mob. 

In  fact  there  is  plausible  argument  that  Casticus,  if  he  did  not  meet 
with  death  as  a result  of  his  treason,  must  at  least  have  died  shortly 
afterwards,  otherwise  the  disappearance  from  the  narrative  of  so 
prominent  a figure,  if  he  were  yet  living,  would  seem  rather  remarkable. 
The  Casticus  whom  the  shrewd  Orgetorix  had  deemed  of  sufficient 
strength  and  power  to  form  one  of  his  triad  would  certainly  be  heard 
from  again,  unless  we  are  to  imagine  that  he  had  been  the  mere  dupe 
of  the  other  conspirators,  the  cat’s-paw  of  the  coalition. 

For  instance,  when,  in  the  third  year,  the  Helvetians  finally  were  on 
the  march  and  it  was  found  necessary,  as  a last  resort,  to  pass  through 
Sequanian  territory,  they  made  overtures  to  Dumnorix  the  Aeduan  to 
act  as  a mediator  and  to  negotiate  a safe  passage  (1,  9).  It  certainly 
does  seem  that,  if  Casticus  were  still  living  at  this  time,  some  mention 
would  be  made  of  him  in  connection  with  this  episode.  Could  the 
Helvetii  forget  that  Dumnorix  had  been  a fellow-conspirator  of  Orgetorix 
and  yet  ignore  Casticus?  It  could  have  been  of  prime  importance  to 
apply  as  well  to  this  third  man,  who  was  himself  a native  Sequanian 
and  who  might  be  able  to  obtain  terms  for  them.  Of  course  there  may 
have  been  hesitation  to  entrust  the  entire  burden  of  meditation  to  a 
Sequanian,  for  Casticus,  as  a native,  could  not  bring  the  same  arguments 
to  bear  upon  his  fellow-countrymen  as  an  outsider  like  Dumnorix  could. 
And  again,  we  are  at  Caesar’s  mercy,  for,  even  were  Casticus  alive  and 
concerned  in  this  compact  between  the  Helvetii  and  the  Sequani,  it  may 


13 


not  have  been  to  Caesar’s  purpose  to  mention  it.  Dumnorix  was  Caesar’s 
chief  concern.  In  Caesar’s  mind,  Casticus  may  even  have  been  given  that 
sort  of  recognition  which  we  now  give  to  Crassus  or  even  to  Pompeius 
in  Caesar’s  own  Triumvirate,  that  of  being  the  weak  member  of  that 
famous  but  ill-starred  coalition  of  chieftains.  If  still  living,  the  infer- 
ence is  rather  strong,  though  it  may  be  quite  unjust,  that  the  person- 
ality of  Casticus  was  not  of  sufficient  influence  and  prestige  to  warrant 
Caesar’s  naming  him  again  in  some  one  of  the  several  passages,  like 
this  one,  in  which  the  Sequani  figure. 

At  some  time  subsequent  to  the  conspiracy  of  Orgetorix,  there  had 
occurred  that  famous  Battle  of  Magetobriga  (1,  31,  12;  40,  8:  6,  12,  3), 
in  which  the  united  forces  of  Celtic  Gaul,  Sequanian  and  Aeduan  alike, 
went  down  in  terrific  carnage  before  the  tyrant  from  the  Rheinland. 
May  it  be  that  Prince  Casticus  had  fallen  here  on  this  bloody  field,  in 
defense  of  common  Gaul  against  a common  foe,  erasing  the  stigma  of 
his  treason  in  gallant  effort  to  stay  the  fall  of  his  country? 

Supposing  that  Casticus  survived  both  the  episode  of  the  conspiracy 
and  the  field  of  Magetobriga,  it  is  left  to  us  to  wonder  if  he  were 
a member  of  that  general  legation  that  waited  upon  Caesar  after  the 
latter’s  defeat  of  the  Helvetians,  requesting  a council  of  all  Gaul  and 
conferring  with  him  secretly  about  the  awful  regime  of  Ariovistus 
(1,  30,  31).  There  were  Sequanians  among  them,  for  Caesar  remarked 
it  (1,  32)  and  was  puzzled  at  their  strange  behavior.  And  perhaps 
the  spectacle  is  none  too  abject  for  our  unfortunate  Prince  Casticus. 
Inheritor  of  a great  name,  but  fated  not  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his 
fathers;  member  of  a brilliant  triad  of  conspirators,  but  overshadowed 
by  the  greater  fame  of  his  associates:  despoiled  of  an  opportunity  to 
display  any  real  genius;  and  now  standing  with  bowed  head,  speechless, 
sullen  before  the  Roman  Governor — if  this  be  Casticus,  we  may  behold 
in  him  the  type  of  what  the  Celt  was  now  becoming,  a disinherited, 
disappointed,  and  degenerate  people,  suppliant  before  the  master-mind 
of  a Caesar. 


14 


